UPDATE: Oddly enough both videos were pulled from YouTube at the same time this little write-up was getting traction through facebook shares. The video recording of Keller explaining unconditional election in a Calvinist friendly church seems to have been banished forever. However I found another copy of Keller’s speech at Harvard where Calvinist Keller is retired (along with unconditional election, irresistible grace and limited atonement) and Arminian Keller emerges. He goes so far as to say individuals that “right now don’t have Jesus, need to get him…those that don’t have Jesus…and are headed toward a Christ-less eternity…are those who have chosen not to turn towards the grace of God.” This is quite astounding given that Calvinism repudiates any idea that God’s redemptive, irresistible grace is of a nature that it can be turned away from! Keller’s public statements would be more congruous with his privately held beliefs if he had said, “Millions of people go to hell because Jesus didn’t want to be ‘gotten’ by them. Therefore Jesus decreed that his redemptive grace would turn away from them.” The video is linked here.

I really like Tim Keller– I really do. He is a brilliant thinker, a passionate preacher and an articulate apologist. Unfortunately he is also suffers from a severe bout of Calvinism-Cognitive-Dissonance (click here for more info). Either that or he lacks the courage or will-power to say publicly what he holds privately in safe theological quarters, like his home church. Either way I am troubled by this increasing trend by Calvinists. I have tried to highlight in other posts how Calvinists are shockingly duplicitous in regards to their own theology. In public forums and public blogs that are “unsafe” for full Calvinistic disclosure they often choose to double-deal in Arminian theological terminology rather than unveil the nefarious and utterly horrific implications of their Calvinistic beliefs.

For example, John Piper insists that sovereignty means God decrees and wills every evil choice and event in human history–and does so irresistibly. That is to say man’s actions are irresistibly determined and rendered certain by God’s will, and he can no more avoid doing what God has decreed than he can sprout wings and fly to the moon. But later when Piper attempts to explain such a scenario for the mass consumption of his followers he obscures the most controversial element of his argument by dropping the language of decree and picking up the language of permission, saying “God has established a world in which sin will indeed come to pass by God’s permission.” [1] Given the fact that Piper believes that 1) God’s foreordaining mind is the author and origin of everything that occurs, and that 2) God has decreed every thought, desire and choice of man, it is quite silly and disingenuous for Piper to say God permits what he has decreed–as if he had to act as a middleman between His decree and the outworking of His decree. Does God need to get permission from himself? [2]

In returning to Tim Keller let me reiterate that I admire and appreciate Keller (and Piper’s pastoral heart for that matter) for much of what he writes and preaches, but it is concerning to see how consistent leading Calvinists are in being inconsistent! Is it a lack of courage or integrity? I don’t mean to insinuate moral integrity but a lack of theological integrity (unity) that invites the all too common temptation to speak out of both sides of one’s mouth.

In the first video Keller is in the safe confines of his reformed church and he has no qualms about spelling out his belief in Unconditional Election–a doctrine founded on the belief that multitudes are eternally lost because God does not desire their salvation in any genuine sense that would motivate him to extend grace and rescue them from sin. However in his explanation it was disturbing to hear him divorce Unconditional Election from the real implications of Irresistible Grace and try to “sanitize” the entire doctrine by trying to ground it in an analogy of God doing nothing more than “opening their eyes.” But that description falls woefully short of the coercive implications of Calvinism’s doctrine that God’s grace cannot be refused, rejected or resisted. Keller just isn’t being forthcoming or consistent as to what Calvinist theology entails.

The closest reference we have of the phrase “God opened their eyes” in a redemptive context is with Lydia in Acts 19 where it says God opened Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message. But the Bible makes clear that she was already a “worshipper of God”–and only subsequent to that fact did God open her eyes/heart to believe Paul’s message. In other words she was not some hardened, hostile person in open rebellion against God whereby God comes along and “ZAP” sovereignly overturns her hostile rebellion and opens her eyes. Not at all. The scriptures make plain that prior to hearing Paul’s message she was already a “worshiper of God” (Acts. 16:14) and only then did God open or draw her heart further to respond to Paul’s message. This accords succinctly with Arminianism! Arminianism teaches that God’s enabling, drawing grace is absolutely necessary for conversion. But we believe God’s grace brings us to a place where we canbelieve, but not to a place where we must believe–big difference. Because Lydia, “a worshiper of God” in a pagan land responded humbly and teachably to God’s prevenient, drawing grace before Paul came, He now faithfully opens her heart further to behold a fuller revelation of Himself through Paul’s message. So it is with all those that respond to God’s preceding grace and seek to know him in greater measure.

Even though Keller doesn’t use the term “Arminians” he seems to try and contrast his Calvinism with the “other side” by saying that sinners, if left to themselves and divorced from grace, will never choose Jesus–even if given a thousand chances. Granted! That is an essential feature of Arminianism–which majors on the necessity of preceding grace to enable a free response of faith. It is somewhat disturbing that Keller, a well informed theologian, would qualify his Calvinism in such a way as to imply it is the only theology that necessitates God’s grace for true conversion. Again– Arminians hold that God’s grace is necessary for salvation and draws us to a place where we can believe but not to a place where we must believe. In the end we believe God’s grace is resistible and un-coercive– as is the nature of all grace.

But I digress somewhat. I don’t mean to be unkind or uncharitable to Tim Keller, but in the second video Keller is on the hot seat in a public forum as to why not all can be saved, and he sounds more like a water-downed Arminian than the bold Calvinist he is unashamed to be in a Calvinist church. That being said I don’t actually disagree with Keller’s answer. It is an acceptable answer from an Arminian perspective– but only half the story from a Calvinist perspective.

Keller says, “All I can ever say about this is God gives me, even as a minister with scripture, a lot of information on a need to know basis…here’s all I can tell you. Unless you get Jesus Christ, who created you to start with, unless you are reunited with him sometime, there is no eternal future of thriving. If Jesus is who he says he is you gotta have him. If right now someone doesn’t have him, he or she needs to get him. If someone dies and they don’t have Jesus– I don’t know. In other words I’m on a need-to-know basis. This is all I know–you need Jesus.”

Here Keller is simply pretending he “doesn’t know” and pretending he lacks certainty. Why is he pretending? Because in his private, Calvinist chambers he does know and is not at all on a “need to know basis” as to what happens to people who don’t “have Jesus.” As a Calvinist he thinks he has ample, more than sufficient information to warrant a definitive answer– God unconditionally predestined them to perish eternally!

So I must say Keller is being thoroughly inconsistent with his definitive, unambiguous Calvinist beliefs as to why people are not ultimately saved. But Keller simply couldn’t bring himself to say what Calvinists believe privately and tend to utter only in safe quarters–which is: According to the scriptures God didn’t atone for the sins of all people and didn’t love multitudes of people enough to unconditionally elect them to ‘get Jesus.’ God could have elected all to salvation–because what his irresistible grace can do for some, it can do for all. Yes–God created them, but he created them to be apart from him eternally. So before they were born God decreed they would ‘not get Christ and God.’ That is the principal reason why not all can be saved.

Such is the unembellished truth of Keller’s privately professed Calvinism. However Keller intuitively knew that if he answered the interviewer’s question in a straight-forward, Calvinist manner he would have immediately lost all intellectual and moral credibility in the eyes of the audience. The point is– if it can’t be preached in public it shouldn’t be believed in private.

This brings to mind something I once heard: “If it can’t be preached at the gates of Auschwitz it ought not to be preached from the pulpit!” [3] It’s no easy answer for any theological viewpoint, but I would wager a bet that if Tim Keller were to visit Auschwitz and were to be asked, “Where was God?” Calvinist Keller would suddenly be retired and Arminian Keller would quickly pop to the forefront and adopt Arminian language of “free-will being abused.” Why do I think this? Because I think Keller is too good of a man not to retire his Calvinist theology in such a setting– a theology that requires him to believe every Nazi thought, evil desire and action committed at Auschwitz was irresistibly decreed by God in eternity past for his glory.

As alluded to before if a belief system can’t publicly answer the most difficult, painful questions about life and loss, without the very holy and righteous character of God being besmirched beyond recognition (God conceived and decreed all evil), then we ought to toss it in the waste bin of history and go back to the drawing board.

In returning to the public interview above on why some people can’t be saved, I would like to think the real reason Keller chose not to un-sheath his Calvinist sword was because he had too much integrity to actually be fully integrous and consistent to his privately held Calvinist beliefs. In other words I think Keller intuitively knows something is woefully amiss with Calvinist soteriology and sovereignty, but he can’t bring himself to admit it in his private Calvinist chambers.

As such my principal problem with Keller is that he conveniently double-deals in Arminianism phraseology and theology when pressed in public, but disavows and disclaims Arminianism in private when safe. This is epidemic in Calvinism today!

Articulate speakers do create followers and I am concerned that many young people are becoming attracted to Reformed/Calvinist theology without a clue as to the darker, sinister aspects of Calvinism (i.e. God sovereignly and irresistibly decreed all your God-dishonoring, destructive sin).

Most initiates eventually become so enamored with their “Calvinist heros” that they end up becoming assimilated into doctrinal teaching that they probably would have “spat out” had they not become so smitten with their Calvinist heros: “Well, gosh…it’s hard to swallow the doctrine that Jesus didn’t die for all humanity, that he doesn’t redemptively love all humanity, and that God decreed all my sinful and evil choices, but if a smart guy like Keller believes it– it must be true!”

In that sense Keller is a great “poster boy” for contemporary Calvinism because he can represent it in name while simultaneously refusing to be upfront and forthright with Calvinism’s horrific logical and theological implications. Bad theology always survives by clothing itself in the garb of good theology whenever convenient in order to keep the controversial dissimilarities as hidden as possible from public view.

Because I really do appreciate so much of what Keller writes and shares, and believe his voice is credible and needful in so many ways, I long for the day Keller sees his Calvinism as both a liability to the gospel and a libel against the character of God.

P.S. In the first video Keller does ask some questions of an Arminian perspective that are worth looking into further. I hope to post on this later. For starters here is a good place to commence.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About StriderMTB

Hi, I'm Matt. "Strider" from Lord of the Rings is my favorite literary character of all time and for various reasons I write under the pseudonym "StriderMTB. As my blog suggests I seek to live out both the excitement and tension of a Christian walk with Christ in the 3rd world context of Asia. I am unmarried yet blessed to oversee an orphanage of amazing children in South-East Asia. I hate lima beans and love to pour milk over my ice-cream. I try to stay active in both reading and writing and this blog is a smattering of my many thoughts. I see the Kingdom of God as Jesus preached it and lived to be the only hope for a broken world and an even more broken and apathetic church.

15 Responses to Tim Keller: Private Calvinist, Public Arminian

I appreciate your post here. I consider myself a calvinist, and also a huge Tim Keller fan. I think he is one of the most intelligent biblical scholars of our day and will be remembered for a very long time for his work and teachings/preaching. I think the first thing you need to know is this; 1) It is absolutely important for believers in Jesus Christ to discuss and debate secondary doctrines in the church. (Secondary dotrines = Predestination, how baptism should be done, limited atonement, etc.) But it is a sin to divide over these issues. So to post an article or blog like this is a bit too far. So if have two Tim Keller videos that contradict each other (I don’t these videos contradict each other, but I will get there in a minute…) about him proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, and then another saying there are multiple ways to heaven (Not a secondary doctrine, but a primary doctrine in the Church) then that is something to be very concerned about!

Secondly, these videos do not contradict each other. In the second video, Keller responds by essentially saying “If you trust in yourself you will be miserable.” Which is true. We will be miserable now here on earth, and also 10 billion years from now. The only to not be, is putting our faith, hope and trust in Jesus Christ, what Keller says! I don’t see any watered down, arminian viewpoints here. I see an intellectual answer here on what it looks like to put your faith hope and trust in Jesus Christ in front of a hostile crowd. You have to give credit to him for his boldness while being on the “hot seat”.

Thanks Zach Smith for your comments and critique. I never said he contradicted himself in any logical sense. I said his answers are inconsistent—there is a difference. The point of the blog is not to divide but to highlight why Calvinism is an untenable belief that should be jettisoned. Allow me to explain further why I believe Keller (and so many other Calvinists) is trying to play both sides of the theological spectrum (Calvinism and Arminianism) to retain dignity and the moral high ground when he is challenged in the public square. As I earlier stated, I believe Tim Keller is a great intellectual voice in the church today—a voice the church needs. He is way smarter than I–no argument there! For the most part I welcome his voice and give him a hearty amen. However Keller also avows Calvinism and the fact is Calvinism is morally bankrupt—and Keller knows it! That is why he shifts into Arminianism in the public square when he is asked challenging questions like why all people can’t be saved. In Calvinism the answer is both quite simple and profoundly dire:

1) Jesus did not die for all people
2) God doesn’t redemptively love all people
3) God unilaterally chose that a multitude of people would be outside the orbit of his saving intention

Consequently,

4) God predestined a multitude of people to a hell before they were born or did anything good or bad—thus sin and judgment have nothing to do with it. God’s arbitrary whim of redemptive selection is all there is.

That is the nature of an UNCONDITIONAL, individual election Zach. God does not consult anything in the person or about the person or a response by the person prior to choosing who he will save and who He will damn. In Calvinism people choose hell because God sovereignly chose they would lack the opportunity and ability to choose Christ. Therefore God also chose who would be a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, etc. But it gets worse. In Calvinism God holds people accountable and ultimately damns them for the very sins he divinely determined they should do. Calvinism holds that sovereignty means God decreed every person’s individual sins and temptations—for it is adamantly asserted that nothing can lie outside God’s meticulous, universal, “sovereign” foreordination of all things. Calvinism in toto is a morally destitute and deep down I think Tim Keller knows it—which is why he is a Calvinist in private and an Arminian in public.

Why didn’t Keller say, “The principal reason not all people ‘get God’ and are saved is because God decreed before they were born they would not ‘get Christ’ and would exist outside the orbit of his saving intention—period.” Really that is the principal reason in Calvinism and everything else is just window dressing. However when Keller found himself on the “hotseat” in a public forum he tossed his unconditional, select-elect Calvinist theology to the wind because he knew it would cause him to lose all credibility concerning his previous attempts to persuade people to the gospel, etc. This is my big beef with most Calvinists. They live in a world of cognitive dissonance and move the goal posts whenever it suits them in the public square and are often not very forthcoming with young, Calvinist initiates concerning the truly horrific implications of their privately held beliefs. It is my hope that Keller will one day realize he can toss his Calvinist theology to the wind in private and realize he loses nothing of virtue and gains so much more in the process.

The major issue I have with Calvinism is that at best it makes God out to be morally ambiguous and at worst diabolical (i.e. God unilaterally decreed / predestined every evil event in human history. Thus God’s eternal mind is the logical origin of every conceivable evil ever committed. God decreed every divorce, every porn rental, every abortion! See this post if you think I am mischaracterizing the implications of Calvinist theology.)

I hope to address more of his comments in the first video in the future because they are worth delving into further.

You make several great points here, Matt. I will start by saying this; As believers in Jesus Christ, I think it is only normal for us to have more questions than we do answers. I do not have an answer to your point that God unilaterally decreed/predestined every evil event in human history. My only response is that we are born into a sinful nature and we are absolutely, ferociously a lost and ruined people and in dire need of a Savior.

“The Biblical view of things is resurrection—not a future that is just a consolation for the life we never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted. This means that every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy even greater” –Tim Keller; I love that Keller says here basically God will ultimately get the glory for every piece of evil and suffering that has taken place in the world.

One of my favorite verses in the bible is what Paul says in Romans 9:20. “But who are you, o man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” I think the point that Paul makes here is fantastic. I remember when my parents were telling me why they are calvinists and were walking me through “TULIP”. I was very young and elementary in my faith at the time, and I quickly responded with, “Well that is unfair and if I were God I would not make it that way!” Here’s the thing; we are NOT GOD!” God is the holy, just, magnificent Creator of the universe, and (as Paul says) why would we ever have the audacity to answer back to God?

I am not (at all!) trying to convince you into being a calvinist, by any means. I will say this, one thing that draws me to calvinism is that it portrays a much, much higher view of God’s sovereignty. I totally understand your points and criticism here, and I wish I could do a better job of clearly explaining my thoughts. I think it is great for us to discuss and “debate” over these types of issues. God Bless!!

If Romans 9 is making an argument for election in the way Calvinists use the term… why does Paul fail to realize his own argument in verse 32? According to Calvinists, the answer to “Why?” is, “God didn’t cause them to.” However, Paul, in assuming the theoretical question, “Why?” replies that it was the CHOICE of Israel that led to their fate.

The choice is in how you handle Jesus. Jesus IS the “stumbling block” so many of the Jews stumbled over, while some believed and “will never be put to shame.”

It’s all right there. You just have to consider it all as a whole, as opposed to individual “gotcha” opportunities.

Hey Zach, sorry for the delay. I’ve been swamped with some other things. For starters it is crucial that we see the hypocrisy and utter nonsense of the Calvinist position. Keller says that God will manifest his glory when he undoes and repairs horrible things that evil has caused. Well Zach– who decreed all that evil in the first place? God did according to Keller’s privately held theology! It’s absurd. Again Calvinism’s portrayal of God and his glory is akin to a man setting his neighbors house on fire and then running in as the rescuer to save some (but passes over others to let them burn) just so he can splash his name across the newspapers and glorify himself as a hero. Honestly–how is this being missed? Do you not see the hypocrisy of the Calvinist position in saying God decrees the evils of X, Y and Z so that he can glorify himself by undoing and repairing the horrible things that resulted from the evils of X, Y and Z?

God’s glory that you highlight IS NOT seen in him justifying all the evil of this world in virtue of decreeing all the evil of this world. Rather God’s sovereignty and glory is best seen in him overcoming and overruling all evil (that is not of his decretive will) and achieving his ultimate, sovereign purposes in spite of humanity’s misuse and abuse of a good thing– freedom. God’s sovereignty is much greater than you think Zach. He need not meticulously decree everything that happens, from rape to when you relieve yourself in the bathroom, in order to achieve his ultimate aims in the universe.

God’s sovereignty is so great he can achieve his ultimate purposes and one day wipe away ever tear in spite of man’s libertarian freedom. You state that you are attracted to Calvinism because it posits a view “that has a much higher view of God’s sovereignty.” I couldn’t disagree more my friend. I’m of the opinion that Calvinism’s God is a very insecure God and is downright scared of any free-will that would allow man to self-determinative and not causally constrained to divine decrees.

You bring up Romans 9– the most looked to verse Calvinists find refuge in to make some of their claims look credible. I admit, divorced from the surrounding context, and approached with certain Calvinist assumptions, the chapter seems to support the Calvinist position. But read within its context and divorced from Calvinist preconceived assumptions the chapter actually argues against Calvinist claims. I would encourage you to read this synopsis Zach–especially part 4 and 5.

Someone sent me a clip of another segment in which Calvinist Keller is retired in the public forum and Arminian Keller emerges. It is quite telling. He is asked about who goes to hell and he strongly implies that the choice to want God and choose God is available to everyone; and that the only ones in hell are those that refuse to choose God–the driving insinuation being that they could! Calvinist Keller never bothers telling the public forum that according to his privately held beliefs it is God who chooses who “chooses” him, and those in hell are those that God did not want! Once again if it can’t be preached in public without God’s loving and moral integrity (in “desiring that no man perish” and “all to come to a saving knowledge of him”) becoming a joke, then it ought not be believed in private. I once again get the sense that Keller wants to shed the arbitrary God of Calvinism and embrace an Arminian informed portrait of God’s soteriology–but for whatever reason just can’t bring himself to do so when re-immersed in Calvinist company.
See for yourself:

“I really like Tim Keller” – This is the kind of thing that just needs to stop. Quit being pansies people. If the guy is a heretic, then don’t like him. This woosey wamsy pamsy liberal “He’s a heretic who is causing thousands of people to go to hell, but he’s one helluva guy to have a beer with” proves YOU to not be a Christian. A real Christian doesn’t appreciate heretical Calvinists in the least. Even if you do like the devil’s ministers on a personal level, what do you gain by saying so? Are they going to be more likely to listen to you? No. They’re the devils ministers. So quit kissing their butts. All it does is weaken the case you are making against them, and make YOU look like a bafoon.

A little less anger and little more grace David…may just take you to places on a personal level with others you have never been before. I have no problem discrediting Calvinistic theology, but it is not my place to deny them a place at the table of fellowship. If that makes me look like a buffoon in your opinion, I am willing to take the hit. (BTW if you are going to call people “buffoons” you might want to spell it right). At any rate David I have met an increasing number of former Calvinists who were won over to the “other side” because they actually encountered the “doctrines of grace” in action, not just in dogma. The Calvinist world is rife with toxic pride and smugness. We don’t need to follow suit. All the best.

Strider (love that — reading the Fellowship to my girls right now), I am so (sigh) grateful for your blog. Wow. I don’t even know where to start in expressing gratitude. I was a Calvinist until a couple years ago. I’m 40 now. I was raised in a Calvinist setting, but really didn’t understand the “doctrines of grace” until my mid-20’s when I started reading R.C. Sproul and John Piper. I swallowed the whole thing in entirety. It’s hard now to imagine ever having believed that TULIP was a legitimate theological system. I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your repetition when it comes to determinism, because it forces a Calvinist thinker to come face to face with the implications of his belief system. Even though I abandoned Calvinist theology 2 years ago, it still makes me feel a sense of shock (don’t know a better word to use) every time you point out the terrible implications of the idea that God determined everything. I’ve believed that for so long that I need the repeated enlightening about it. I also really appreciate your pointing out the idea that God REDEEMS evil for good, but doesn’t CAUSE evil for good. It is such an important distinction, and so liberating for me in approaching God. This God, I can trust. I can draw near to. He is holy and good, and He has become magnified in my mind far beyond the Calvinist ideas I used to have of Him, because He is so sovereign and powerful ad good that He can create a world in which people are free to make choices, and it doesn’t faze Him because He is so great that He can turn even evil choices into good for His people. How small was my Calvinist idea of God! Sigh. I also want to say that I am one of those former Calvinists who was “won over to the other side” because I encountered the doctrines of grace in action, not just in dogma, as you said.
Thank you again for your blog, and God bless your ministry in the orphanage, living and proclaiming truly Good News to those children!

Your words and thanks have made my day… and my Easter 🙂 Thank you Deborah for sharing part of your journey and allowing this blog to reinforce where the Lord has brought you from to where he is taking you. Just yesterday I heard a powerful sermon that helps encapsulate further the glorious truth that God seeks to enter into evil to redeem it by causing good to come out of it (rather than conceive it, determine it and decree it as a cause for good). In the sermon he makes the critical distinction that “IN everything God is working for the good” (Romans 8:28). It does not say “God is working everything” as Calvinists abhorrently teach. God does not cause everything. Rather he finds much of everything as it is–gruesome, hopeless, horrid and foul–and seeks to enter into it and bring about good that only he can achieve (if we respond rightly which is why there is the condition “to those that love God.”) Like a firefighter, God goes into the burning infernos of our lives for a good purpose–to rescue and redeem. But it doesn’t mean he caused the fire in the first place. God does not play the arsonist so that he can play the hero/firefighter. At any rate it is one of the most profound, beautiful sermons on the resurrection I have ever come across. Here is the link: http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/resurrection-principle

I watched the sermon and it was really good. It really helped me consider how God wants me to walk through some difficult things and to see how He will redeem/resurrect them for good if I let him. And I’m encouraged also to find Greg Boyd’s blog. Thank you again for the recommendation!